From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 09:56:10 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] stash: fix and improve "git stash -p <pathspec>"
Message-ID: <CAN0heSrk4osiXTfxSZB9EN3o4NF+zLCBJscrSTa1Rsz+VjzjVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a66483fb-5bc4-42b5-b361-c900a69015ed@gmail.com>

Hi Phillip,

On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 at 11:42, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2025 13:56, Martin Ågren wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Jun 2025 at 11:45, Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > So the implementation under test could bungle the pathspec, query the
> > user for both `file` and `otherfile` (in that order!), get EOF from
> > stdin while handling `otherfile`, leave it out of the stash, and end up
> > passing the test. We could try to protect against this by providing
> > another "y": if git wants to read something after our "s y n" sequence,
> > we'll give it a "y" in the hopes that it will trip things up. We do want
> > to test the handling of pathspecs here, so maybe tighten this?
>
> Junio has merged this to next now. I was hoping that we would already
> have coverage for this with other tests but I couldn't see anything so
> I'll look at improving the coverage for "git stash push -p <pathspec>"
> in the next release cycle.

Ok, makes sense. Those would certainly be good regression tests to have.
I did some manual testing when I wrote the above and feel confident,
FWIW, that it works correctly as of now.

Thanks for these git-stash improvements.

Martin